Day 1, Session 1

The first session was chaired by Marc-Andrè Renold and concerned historical aspects of orphan works. Marc-André Haldimann (University of Bern) spoke on historical perspectives on the structure of collections. He presented the historical context that allows provenance to be found, such as the rediscovery of Pompeii, Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt, and the exploration of Babylon. He also stressed that after the end of World War II the problem of illegal collections arose, especially private collections, and the lack of provenance and even fake provenance in the art market.

Cécile Colonna presented the issue of collecting antiques in the nineteenth century from a methodological point of view. The nineteenth century was a period when archeology started to be treated as a scientific discipline, and numerous excavations were carried out. It was also a period when the art market developed, more auction houses appeared, and museums were born, which is why the nature of collections has changed. The problem of a lack of care about the history and provenance of collections also arose at this time. Colonna outlined the different kinds of sources of knowledge about the origins of the objects and the ways in which collectors documented their collections, such as inventories, auction records, and labels. She also introduced a very famous case study: a list of over 8,000 objects from private collections and Parisian museums, described and illustrated by Jean-Baptiste Muret.

Véronique Krings (University of Toulouse II, Jean Jaurès) spoke on the passion of antique dealers at the beginning of twentieth century, using the example of Franz Cumont. During his travels to the Middle East, Cumont kept a diary in which recorded lists of all the artifacts he bought for the Royal Museum in Brussels.

Léa Saint-Raymond (École Normale Supérieure, Paris) and Maxime Georges Métraux (University of Gustabe Eiffel) introduced the legacy of Doctor Faure and his importance to the city of Aix-les-Bains. He amassed a remarkable collection of impressionist paintings, including works by painters such as Paul Cèzanne, Camille Pissaro, Edgar Degas, and Alfred Sisley. The speakers presented a brief analysis of his testament, in which he donated his collection to the city. They noted that in the catalogue there is no mention about provenance of the items, and, at the time of the establishment of the Faure Museum in 1947, nothing has been done to document the provenance of these works. Speakers also presented the results of their research on certain objects that came into the possession of Doctor Faure.

At the end of the first session, Kamil Zeidler (University of Gdańsk) shed light on the freedom of collecting, provenance research, and the restitution of cultural property from a legal philosophy point of view. The speaker stressed that the restitution of cultural property is not only a practical problem but also a philosophical one, and restitution in this case should be understood sensu largo or even largissimo. The speaker noted that freedom of collecting, even as a fundamental human right, has its limits, which are set by the law, when it comes to the common public interest. What is more, provenance research into this kind of activity provides safety in the art market and security of purchases and possessions of cultural property. Regarding the restitution of cultural property, which was recognized by the speaker as a difficult case, special attention should be paid to orphan works, and provenance questions should be asked as a moral obligation.

Day 1, Session 2

The second session was focused on what should be done with works without pedigree from the point of view of researchers, museums, and collectors, and it was moderated by Isabelle Tassignon. Pierre Leriche (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) presented the problem of authenticity and the interpretation of orphan works based on examples of objects from the Middle East, mostly from Syria. As the speaker said, antiques from the Middle East that are exhibited in European museums are not often orphan works because they come from official excavations. Archaeological artifacts like weapons or bronze items that have been stolen or looted are a much bigger problem, especially when it comes to authenticity issues. Often, such objects do not have any documentation of origin, and everything is in the hands of experts.

Boris Wastiau (Museum of Ethnography of Geneva) spoke on post-colonial property without pedigree in an ethnographic collection. The speaker reflected on the decolonization of the museum’s collection and noted that some colonial objects had resulted from slavery and, for this reason, have been recognized as being from anonymous sources. Moreover, African objects were taken from their original owners and integrated into the international network, becoming objects of transaction in the art market. This transfer caused these objects to lose their original meaning. Therefore, an important role should be played by the creation of ethical standards for museums that would require critical research provenance and the presentation of the results of such research.

Corinne Herschkovich (Advocate of the Court, Paris) presented how the French law treats works without pedigree from her experience and practice. As the speaker explained, in French law, the issue of orphan works is often regulated under the Intellectual Property Code, which treats them as works whose authors cannot be identified. The situation is a little different when it comes to orphan cultural artifacts. She focused on the two main problems – the definition of provenance, whose concept is constantly evolving, and the lack of precise legal regulations and databases of orphan works, while proposing potential solutions to these problems.

Marcel Marée (British Museum, Ancient Egypt and Sudan Department) spoke on the circulation of artifact platforms as a tool for provenance research. CircArt was created as a groundbreaking initiative to deal with the widespread global trade in illicit antiquities. The main goal of the platform is to examine objects whose provenance and context has been lost or hidden. It brings together the knowledge of experts and academics in various fields, which allows the provenance of objects to be identified and the creation of a database of pre-Islamic antiquities from Egypt and Sudan, and, as a result, it supports higher standards of due diligence in the art market.

Markus Hilgert (Cultural Foundation of the German Federal States) introduced the issue of provenance research on orphan objects in collections in German’s museums. The last speaker was Jean-Yves Marin (Geneva Museum of Art and History), who shared the experiences and practice related to the problem of finding the coherence of collections.

Day 2, Session 3

On the second day of the conference, the third session was chaired by Marina Schneider. As the first speaker, Antoinette Maget-Dominicé (University of Munich) spoke on the challenges for the history of art that come with the issue of origin and the provenance of the objects. The speaker on this topic highlighted three of the most important problems: first, the recognition of the items of history and research, especially the qualification and naming of these objects and the differences between origin and provenance and the creation of legal definitions for both of them; second, the importance of art history; and, third, the interdisciplinary approach in provenance research.

Niklaus Güdel (Archives Jura Brüschweiler) introduced the case of Gustave Courbet’s painting Paysage du Jura. The case concerned an unpublished painting by Coubert, donated to the canton of Jura by a businessman from Zurich, which was not known to any specialists and did not appear in any raisoneé catalogue. The speaker presented a brief analysis of investigating authenticity of this painting without pedigree. Anna Zielinski (Galeria Sycomore, Geneva) explained the significance of provenance from the point of view of the art market. The speaker, based on her own experiences, presented the contribution of art dealers to the research and collection of the documentation of orphan works. Anthony Meyer (Galeria Meyer of Oceanic Art, Paris) presented several types of provenance (such as true provenance, reconstructed provenance, art market provenance) and the situation of when a dealer is the first traceable source and how the dealer can establish provenance, referring also to due diligence and showing some examples of so-called “cold case” objects – that is, works about which we have limited information.

Jean-Christophe Argillet (Galeria Furstenberg, Paris) delivered a speech on an American adoptee that became a European orphan. Pierre Taugourdeau focused on the problem concerning whether an object without provenance is immediately an orphan work. The speaker noted that provenance research is an important goal for museums, art historians, and collectors, who should collaborate in this field, and that as long as provenance research is conducted an object whose origin is unknown cannot be an orphan work.

Day 2, Session 4

The fourth session was held by Marc-Andrè Renold and concerned experiences with “regularization periods” and the issue of patrimonalization. Denis Moschopoulos (Ionian University of Corfu) introduced the genesis of private collections of archeological works in Greece during the period between the two world wars. In his presentation, the speaker referred to the legal, political, and ideological aspects of the management of archaeological sites in Greece during the two wars. He discussed the concepts of property and their application to antiques legislation. He also pointed to the impossibility of creating a legal framework combining private property and the protection of archaeological works, not only for historical reasons but also because of the inability of the Greek legal order to reflect the institutional concept of law. Finally, he formulated a proposal for a private donation of the collection in order to guarantee both social control and freedom of action and the development of an institutional relationship between the state and individuals.

Laurie Ruch (Nordic Center for Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict, Copenhagen) presented the fate of Italian private collections. She began with a brief introduction to Italian heritage law and tradition, emphasizing, in particular, the role of the Carabinieri per la Tutela Patrimonio Culturale not only in finding missing and looted works of art but also in the documentation and analysis of criminal behavior and education in this field. The speaker also drew attention to the problem of cultural goods “found in the garden” that appear in the United States and are treated as private property. On this example, she made a comparison between the situation of tension between private holdings and the protection of cultural property in the United States and Italy.

Anne-Marie Afeiche (General Council of Museum, Beirut) spoke on donations and acquisition to the National Museum of Beirut in the 1950s. The speaker discussed the evolution of the structure of the museum and its data as well as the activities that the museum undertook to obtain cultural goods, including anthropoid sarcophagi and the arm of a statue of Jupiter Heliopolitan.

The conference ended with a roundtable discussion, moderated by Jean-Robert Gisler and including the following participants: Vincent Boele (Museum aan de Stroom, Antwerp), Jean Claude Gandur (Gandur Foundation, Geneva), Anne-Marie Afeiche (General Council of Museum, Beirut), Sophie Delepierre (International Council of Museums), Mariya Polner (World Customs Organization, Brussels), and Corrado Catesi (Interpol). The conference was another important scientific event organized by UNESCO’s Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage, and UNIDROIT (within the UNIDROIT Convention’s Academic Project), showing the University of Geneva’s important place in the field of the protection of cultural heritage. The organizers are also planning to publish a conference book.